The Delhi High Court recently ordered the takedown of websites that were infringing on the "GINGER" hotel trademark owned by the Tata Group's Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) [The Indian Hotels Company Limited vs. Ankit Sethi & Ors.].
Justice Mini Pushkarna further observed that the actions of those running these fake websites (four defendants) were potentially criminal in nature.
The judge, therefore, also ordered these defendants to pay ₹20 lakhs as costs, apart from permanently restraining them from using "GINGER" and associated trademarks.
“It is established that defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels. Therefore, the aforesaid actions of the said defendants, amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and also constitute an attempt to misappropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in the market,” the Court held.
The Court passed the ex-parte March 3 ruling on a trademark infringement suit filed by the IHCL, which is part of the Tata Group of companies. IHCL (plaintiff) offers a range of hospitality services under the brand names TAJ, VIVANTA, SELEQTIONS, GINGER and Ama Stays and Trails.
IHCL moved the High Court for relief after it came across websites that used the trademark ‘GINGER’ for hotel bookings without authorisation. These websites also displayed photos of actual GINGER hotels to mislead customers.
The Court found that this amounted to a misuse of IHCL's copyrights in the photographs and a violation of its trademark rights.
“The defendant’s infringing actions are bound to cause deception and confusion in the minds of unwary consumers, who will assume the defendant’s impugned websites to have originated from the plaintiff (IHCL). Therefore, the plaintiff has been able to make a clear case not only of infringement of the plaintiff’s trademarks, but of passing off, as well,” the Court held.
The Court concluded that the defendants were imposters and that such fake platforms could cause losses to IHCL and its customers.
“In the present case, the defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 have blatantly infringed the trademarks of the plaintiff and have also failed to appear before this Court. Furthermore, the illegal and fraudulent activities of the defendants may not only cause incalculable loss to the plaintiff, but also to the large number of users/customers accessing the plaintiff’s website,” the Court stated.
The Court also observed that IHCL had adopted the trademark ‘GINGER’ in 2005 and has been in continuous use of the marks as its domain name and brand name.
“Where a domain name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive identity becomes critical,” the Court added.
Earlier, the Court had passed an order of ex parte interim injunction directing the defendants to take down its fake websites. Their right to defend was also closed since the defendants did not file their written statement to the suit.
On March 3, the Court proceeded to pass a summary judgment in IHCL's favour after observing that the defendants had neither appeared before the court nor filed their written statements. This showed that they had no real prospect to defend themselves, the Court concluded.
Advocates Priya Adlakha, Sucharu Garg and Shilpi Sinha appeared for IHCL.
Advocate Shivam Narang appeared for NameCheap, Inc.
Standing Counsel Santosh Kumar Rout with Advocates Dharna Veragi, B.N. Mishra and Shilpa Chaursia appeared for the Punjab National Bank.
Advocate Nilendu Vatsyayan appeared for the Canara Bank.
Central Government Standing Counsel Nidhi Raman, with Advocates Arnav Mittal and Debaish Mishra appeared for the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications.
Advocate Manish Kr. Tiwari appeared for a private defendant.
[Read judgment]